The Sun. — London, England, 1864-12-10 00:00:00

Rercam Movement in the West Riding, On Thursday evening a demoustration took place in St. George's-hall, Bradford, in favour of Parlia mentary Reform. Five members of Parliament, all connected with the West Riding of Yorkshire, were announced to take part in the proceedings — and out of the number, Mr W. E. Forster, Sir F. Crossley, Mr Stansfield, and Mr Baines put in an appearance. Mr E. A. Leathern was absent on ac count of a family bereavement. The body of the hall and gallery were crowded—and in the stalls, for admission to which a small charge was made, there was also a good attendance. There were com puted to be about 3,000 persons present. The chair was taken by Mr. W. E. Forster, M,P. ; and there were also present in addition to the members of Parliament already named, Aldermen Mitchell and Law ; Messrs. S. C. Kell, A. Illingworth,W. Byles, Whitehead, and other gentlemen of the neighbour hood. Mr FORSTER said—Before I make the few re marks with which I must open the business of the meeting, I feel it due to you and myself, consider. ing the other gentlemen present upon the platform, to state why I am in the chair. We have present this evening members of Parliament much better fitted, from their standing in the House, and also from the part they have taken in this great goes• Lion, to occupy the chair, especially my friend Mr. Baines, who for two or three Sessions has with such energy, with such ability (cheers), and such con. rage, held up the standard of reform, and therefore I wish it clearly understood that the sole reason why I am in this honourable position is because this meeting happens to be held in Bradford, and it was thought that the member for Bradford, of all others, should preside. (Cheers) This is a Bradford meeting, and yet in some respects it may be called a West Riding meeting. It is a meeting of the people of Bradford, but it is such a meeting as might have been held in any of the towns of the West Riding, considering what the feeling upon this question now is. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt, if it had been determined that the first meeting upon this question should be held either in Leeds, Huddersfield, or Halifax, you would have had a similar meeting, and I suppose it is to the feeling that this meeting is one representing the West Riding that we have so large a number of the representatives of the West Riding constituencies present tonight. (Hear, hear.) Why do we Reformers hold this meeting, to be followed up by other meetings elsewhere ? We have had Reform meetings over and over again in this hall, until we are nearly tired, without do ing any good. Why, then, have we this meeting ? Because the promoters of the meeting, being active reformers at Manchester and elsewhere, have come to the conclusion that now especially it is desirable that the reformers in our large towns, and in large districts such as the West Riding, which has al ways held a strong interest on Reform, should meet together in large numbers, and should call to their counsel their representatives to consider the present position of the Reform question, and that especially at this time should they do so, chiefly for this rea son—that this Parliament, which was originally a Reform Parliament, which was called together as a Reform Parliament, which has long ceased to be a Reform Parliament—(hear, hear)—is now ape proaching to its close. I don't say we are to have a dissolution next session. We are very loth to die— (laughter)—but we cannot live beyond next year, and I suspect, even if we don't resolve upon dying next year, that during the next session we shell be only dead-alive—(laughter)—and that the approach of our death will weigh upon us as a heavy cloud. (Hear, hear.) I fancy we shall be thinking of our dissolution, and therefore it is well that our consti tuents, and the errantry also, should be thinking of the sultnct, and considering what, when Par. liement is dissolved, shall be done with the Reform question. (Hear, hear.) It may be said, " Must we wait until then ?" I fear we must. I only wish there was a chance to the contrary ; that at the last moment Ministers should recollect upon what conditions this Parliament was chosen, to what extent it was pledged to Reform, and that even at the last moment Ministers would do their duty and fulfil their pledges, staking their exise tence upon it, and calling upon Parliament to fulfil its pledges, or stiking the existence of Parliament upon it. I only wish that was probable, but I fear we must consider that it is almost without the range of probability. I think that as Reformers the practical question we row have to consider is what line we shall take and in what position we shall place this reform question after the next dis solution of Parliament. (Applause.) Just for a moment let us consider that question. Is there any reason why, although five or six years ago we made the Reform question a paramount question on the hustings, we should not do so at the next dissolution ? (Hear, hear.) Are the circumstances now different to what they then were ? Is the need for Reform less ? Is there any more truth, any less falsehood, in the alleged dangers of Re• form now than there was then ? (Cheers.) First, as to the need. I think that in two or three sen tences I may pass over that. We all feel that the need is as strong as it was before. Take our own constituencies. We have upon this platform four members of Parliament representing four consti tuencies. What are those constituencies ? Those constituencies represent one million and a quarter of people ; they comprise one-twentieth of the population of Great Britain and Ireland. (Ape plause.) What is the share of the representa tion that these constituencies have ? We four who are here, and our four colleagues who are not here, with one-twentieth of the population, have one eightieth of the representation of the kingdom. Again, take the three towns that are represented here—Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax. These three towns have a population of 320,000, I rn:ght give more striking cases, more striking illustrations, but I will take three townsin our own immediate neigh.. bourhood—Pontefract, Knaresborough, and Ripon. What is the population of these three towns ? 23,000. Each man who lives at Ripon,-Pontefract, or Knaresborough has 15 times as much voting power as the man who lives at Leeds, Bradford, or Halifax. And what is the especial virtue that be. longs to the Pontefract, or Knaresborough, or Ripon man that gives him 15 times as much voting power as belongs to you here, or to the men of Leeds? (" Hear, hear," and applause.) This is the inconsistent, anomalous mode in which the re presentation is apportioned. Bat then going from that, and coming to those who have votes, even where there is representation, what are the voters in these three constituencies of the West Riding— Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax? They form less than 1-25th of those free constituencies, while the adult tax-paying men form considerably more than one-fifth. Therefore the result is that enly one man out of five adult taxpayers has any share in self,' government—has any vote. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, who are those four-fifths that are excluded ? What class do they form ? They are almost all of one class—labourers, artisans, working men. I have had some practical experience of that. When I was contesting Leeds with my friend Mr Baines, I could have counted the working men who were able to vote for Mr Baines or myself upon my fingers, and I could almost do the same in my pre- sent constituency. Yet, as I ventured to say in the House of Commons, if we go through these towns, and if we look at what has been dove, and at what is doing, to what class have we to look for the success of those towns more than to the hard working artisans and labourers who are thus excluded from all share in the representation ? (Applause.) Now, I will not dwell any longer upon the need. We feel It to be as strong as ever it was ; we feel it is an insult and W a disgrace. (Applause.) We now co me to the dan gers. Are there any dangers in this Reform, in this act of justice, greater than they were before? 1 hear men constantly talking as though they . feared Reform much more than they used to do, but I al ways doubt whether they fear Reform more th an they did ; they think there is less danger now in expressing that fear or the appearance of it. But w hy should they ? I won't anticipate my friend Mr B tines, who, if he says one-fourth or one-tenth part of what he has sail in the House of Commons would prove to demonstration to any opponent or objector that if there was any danger—and I don't believe there was-5 or 10 years ago, there must be less danger now, such has been the progress to in. dustry, morals, and prosperity of the working men themselves. But fresh grounds of danger are ex pressed. I hear men talking in an ominous way about strikes for wages, and that, t'icrefore, the working men must not have the franchise. I am not going into the question of strikes. We all lament these differences between labour and capital, bat they are no argument against the extension of the franchise. Strikes, however deplorable, are not so common and destructive as they were in former times,and when they do occur are accompanied with far less violence and outrage than used to be the case. I begin to hope that we now see symptoms of a greater agreement between labour and capital than we ever saw before. (Hear.) I believe co.operation is going to strike out strikes from existence. Whether that will be the case or not, I say, as an employer of iabonr, that anything more fatal to our class interests—if you choose to divide us into classes —than this argument of the wages question against an extension of the franchise I cannot conceive. Then we come to what is said by those who are con. stantly looking at the civil war in America. " America is a democracy—America is a self governing republic, and there you have a civil war, and will you venture to insist on Reform when you see what has occurred on the other side of the At. lantic ?'' What does this mean but that we are to cling to our aristocratic Government, that we are to fence it round and preserve it from the breath of Reform ? Why ? Because the democracy of America are engaged in a life and death struggle to free their country from the grasp of a slave.holding oligarchy. Let us suppose for a moment that they had done in America jest what they have not done. Let us suppose that the Republicans of America, of the Nortb, had continued to allow themselves to be governed by the man•owners of the South. What should we have said of them ? What did we say of them? That they were so engaged in mammon.hunting that they forgot principle, that they were careless of their own liberty, that they were glad to connive at the tyranny of the South over the negro ? (A Voice—" That is not a slave question.") I beg your pardon ; it is a question with which we are constantly taunted. (Loud cheers, and another Voice—" That is not the ques• tion.") I will bring you to the question very soon. (Laughter and cheers.) Because they declared they would no longer submit to be this ruled, they at the same time said they would not submit to have their country broken up. If they had done the contrary, what should we have said of them ? We should have said that they were cowardly—(loud applause)—that those working men of America had no patriotism ; that they preferred money and an easy life to principle and to their country. (Hear, hear, and applause.) And we should have said to them, " Take care how 3 - on let the aristocracy of England lose its power and be replaced by a democracy, which will thus allow itself to be .subservient to special interest.' (Applause.) Because they have not done so, because the working men, the artisans and yeomen of America have poured out their lives for the last two or three years on behalf of their country ; because at this last mo ment they have shown by their conduct at the late vote that they even hated slavery more than they loved union. (A Voice—That is not the question.) I will come to the question. (Cheers and laughter.) Because these working men on the other side of the Channel have shown that they hated slavery, and loved their country, therefore we are constantly told, and I suppose my friend there would join in so tell• ing us, the working men, the artisans and labourers of England, are to be excluded from their share in Government, and to be pariahs in their constitution. (Loud applause.) Well, but I think the opponents of Reform ought to be ashamed of mentioning Ame rica, and for this reason. Who is it that has pre served this country from intermeddling in American affairs ? Whether it was right or wrong, it would have been considered by the Americans, as it would have been considered by us, such an intermeddling as might possibly, might probably have led us to war with our kinsman on behalf of slavery. I say who has prevented this being done ? Not the aristocracy of England ; not even the middle classes of England, but the working men of England. (Applause.) I am not complimenting you. I believe you would have done it if you had been tried ; you were not tried. But there were working men who were tried— the working mcn of Lancashire, who were tried in every way—(loud cheers)—who under the strongest possible inducement, that of deep and unmerited poverty, refused to palter with principle. They were weong, perhaps, my friend there would say; but ho will not deny this, that whether wrong or right, they have shown that the working men of that great district—and 1 do not compliment them so far as to suppose that they did what other working men would not have done—fulfilled what is the greatest and most necessary condition of granting power to any order of men whatever. (Cheers.) That is, they have preferred principle to interest, they have preferred the good of their country and the principles which they professed to a mere pecuniary advantage. (Cheers.) I dare say a great many of you, of the working men present, have read Mr. Mill's book upon representative go vernment. Yon will have seen that he, although a friend of the people, and a strong friend of Reform, looks with some fear upon a great eaten. sion of the franchise, because, he says, it would throw a great deal of power into the hands of the working classes, and that they might use that power to the disadvantage of their country, and might prefer their apparent interest, the in• terest of the moment, to the interest of the country. I feel that this fear of his must have been removed by what has taken place lately, by the test which has been applied to them within the last five years, and which they have most suc cessfully stood. I think I have shown the need is as great as it was, and that the dangers are even less than they were. Then, are we or are we not to have the reform question a pre-eminent one at the next dissolution ? Here las met with another objection. I ara told perhaps that " There is ne new fact. no new circumstance. We do not imagine that the theoretical arguments on behalf of Reform are less strong than they were. We do not suppose there is much in this change. But we have discovered there was a hollowness in what you thought to be a fact before. We have discovered that all this talk about Reform was hollow and insincere. We find out now by the apathy with which the Reform question is viewed, and by the manner in which those who professed Reform views at one time do not profess them now—we gather from all that, that those working men whom you talk so much about do not care to have votes, then surely we may leave them alone, and not give them that which they do not care for." After all that is the strongest argument we have to meet—the alleged apathy of the people, and especially the alleged apathy of that class in favour of whom the extension of the franchise is to be made. Upon that point I might say this meeting alone is a clear proof o f apathy; but I will not be contented with that, I will go into the question. if you will allow me, a minute or two longer. (Cheers.) I don't mean to say there is so great a call or so much need for Reform now as there was when the great Reform Bill was passed ; I don't pretend to say that there are the agitation and feeling in the country there were then. There is not even the same feeling among work ing men as at the time of the Chartist agitation, and why ? not because they are not convinced, as they were then, that they ought to have a share in the Government, but because they found out that they then exaggerated the material advantage they supp-sed would bo obtained by any change of Government. (Hear, hear.) But this much I will say, there is so much feeling about Reform among the prominent and loading men of the Liberal party throughout all our boroughs, and even in our counties, that I will venture upon a prophecy, and it is this, that when the dissolution comes we shall find that the Liberal members will be just as much pledged to Reform as they were at the last dissolution. (Hear, hear.) The question therefore changes itself into this—are these pledges to be taken seri ously ? Are they expected to be falsified or are they not ? That is the quest ion which we have to consider, and not merely we ourselves. I want our opponents and lukewarm friends tbrougLout the country just to answer this question in their own minds. Is it desirable—is it not dangerous— that at the next dissolution members should be pledged to Reform as they were before, and that those pledges should be trifled with by the next Parliament as they have been by this? (Hear, hear.) If that be the case, there will be far more danger involved in the breaking of these pledges than in all that is imagined by the opponents of Reform. (Hear, hear.) It will be destructive of all political morality, it will b 3 fraught with danger to the Parliament itself, and what is by far the least of the evils, it will be utterly destructive, and that for many years to come, of the Liberal party. (Hear, hear.) I believe the question will present itself in that active way to the Liberal party throughout the country —will present itself with such force that they will be obliged to give an affirmative answer; and little as we may think of it at the present moment, I believe that the force with which that question will present itself to their minds will be Po great—however much they may dislike again enter taining it—that it will be carried to some settlement. (Cheers.) I have great hope in the present position of the leaders of our party. Don't suppose lam eo sanguine as to think our present Premier is likely to be very active in ob- it was a moderate, measure of Reform. But that measure was not successsiul, yet it was not defeated by any absolute vote. Passive resistance was enough to kill it: It was with- ,aining a Reform Bill. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) We all drawn. It foundered like some overladen barque heavily labouring in the trough of a leaden sea, without breeze know that Lord Palmerston has a wonderful past to look back upon—a past in some respects a glorious one and enough to fill its sails and to carry it home to port. (Cheers.) Well, now, when that barque of Reform went down, how greater than that of any other man now living ; but Lord Palmerston is of that age, he has come to that time of life when even he cannot look forward to a future. We have other men in the Government who do look forward to was the fact received and accepted by the country i We discovered that we, even the more advanced Liberals in the country at large—no doubt in this respect led astray by the bidding of rival parties upon the question of Reform—had a future. You saw how Mr Gladstone—(loud cheers)—last session looked forward to a future. Mr Gladstone knows been hugging ourselves into a false security and into a delusive hope that we had been discussing and deter mining what we would accept, or perhaps I should speak more accurately it I were to say what we would re he has responsibilities and hopes in the future before him. (Cheers.) But he cannot do all. Reformers throughout be country, do your duty, and you shall not be forsaken by Mr Gladstone. (Loud cheers.) I will only detain you a few minutes longer by two or three remarks on another fuse, instead of determining to put our shoulders to the wheel and to carry some satisfactory measure of reform; branch of the subject, (Cheers.) I believe that we shall have a Reform Bill; and I agree with Mr Leatham that the danger is not so much that we shall have no bill, as that we may have a bad bill, (Hear, hear.) We must keep when all history ought to have told us that no such mea: sure can be relied upon to be carried, save by the determined and persistent exertions of those who are to profit by its en actment, (Cheers.) We who have seats in the House of Commons have had to think much, and dopbtfully some times, but carefully, on the great question of reform ; and I our eyes open and our hands ready to prevent what he calls a pernicious compromise. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I urged on working men to direct their attention to all discussions ;hink I may say, speaking for my colleagues upon the plat rorm, as well as for myself, that we feel our first duty to upon Reform that are taking place. You must not suppose that because certain suggestions appear to be a mere specu- lation that they will not be listened to. Those who have night to be to explain to you as we see it, with ths utmost possible clearness, what I will call the situation—what is possible and what is necessary to be done. Now, we have heard that reform is in abeyance. It is in abeyance, and yet I agree with your chairman that it is a question which must he power in their hands are very prone to try experiments, and they will be only prevented trying them by finding rom the earnestness of those concerned that they will not be experimented upon. When we had the debate last sea- come up again ere long as a leading question for Parliamen tary decision. I know it is said that prophets, to be safe, should above all things avoid the element of time, and I will do so. (Laughter.) But I think at least your children was not far wrong in saying that there were many reasons.which should induce one to imagine that the reform question can hardly fail to be seriously raised at least in the Parliament which is to succeed that which now exists. I assume with sion, so excellently introduced by Mr Baines, I ventured to say, in reply to an hon. gentleman who said that working men were hardly fit to discuss political subjects, that I should like to bring him to my borough and introduce him to working men who would discuss political questions with him. (Laughter.) It might have improved him, and might have improved you also. I know you discuss several of those ideas that are started in regard to reform, and I want you to read a book on the subject written by Earl Grey, son of tire Earl Grey who introduced the great Reform Bill, One him that pledges will be again invited upon the question. Now, I trust—and I conjure you as representing here a Large constituency—l trust, in fairness to your representa tives, that no such pledge will be invited, and that no such of his propositions is that the House of Commons should in a measure elect itself, should cease to be a representative body, and should become self chosen. I don't suppose for a pledge will be accepted, unless you are prepare] to support those from whom you invited that pledge. (Loud cheers.) moment that such a proposition would gain much attention (Hear, and applause.) Another proposition of his, and one _ . And I trust, too, that warned by the past, no candidate will accept such a pledge unless he has determined, so far as in which I conceive to be the most injurious that could be brought forward, is that though working men should have a share in the representation, they should have it as a class, I hope that when the working men do obtain a vote they will him lies, that his party shall redeem it. I think there has been a fault, to speak freely, in out-ef-doors agitation upon reform which it is necessary to avoid in the future. Meh have been got together intellectually interested in the question of re form. But they have dealt with it rather sentimentally. if you will allow me the expression, than in practical earnest. Their mental satisfaction appears to have consisted in discussions of programmes—whether you should start with a principle or whether you should accept a compromise, and if a com promise, what compromise—. and then but too often our ex perience has shown us that the programme at length ac cepted has been, so far as all practical labour is concerned, allowed to fall to the ground. Now, in my mind, such dis cussions continued too long are worse than a waste of time. I say, let every man, and every association of men, declare with the utmost freedom the utmost extent of their wishes —but let them, at the same time that they speak openly and think freely, also show that they possess judgment and common sense. Let them recognise the fact that Reform which is not revolutionary is necessarily progressive and gradual, and that whatever their opinions may be, or my opinions may be, the result inevitably is and must be cora promise—(applauee)—a poor and worthless compromise if they refuse to assist in the work, but a substantial measure of Reform, though still a compromise, if they will put their shoulders to the wheel. I will go on to ask myself and you what is the situation, what is the position of this question, voto as Englishmen, and not as a class divided from their fellow countrymen. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) There is an- other proposition of Earl Grey's which does deserve some consideration. It is what he calls the representation of mi norities. I wish working men would direct their attention to this subject, and make their opinion regarding it known to tho country, and especially to the House of Commons) where it is certain before long to be discussed. Do not sup pose I commit myself to this plan. I see in it many dangers It may make a minority in some cases a majority ; it may give men with special objects, such as the Maine Law advo cates, more than their due influence; might make elec• tioneering as complicated and difficult as bookmaking at a race; but it is worth patient consideration by Reformers, and especially by working men, because it is an honest attempt to meet a danger honestly feared, and because, at any rate, it is not unfair in principle. There is another plan which is proposed, which is a most unfair one. It is called a plurality of voting —giving one man more votes than another because he has more money—just putting five or six poor men together and saying they are only as good as one rich man. I have cor•fidence in the people of Eng land that they will never adopt such a proposition. (Hear, and cheers.) I have only to say, in conclusion, that I hope the effect of this meeting will not end to-night, but that it will lead to an active and efficient organisation on the ques tion of Reform. (Loud cheers.) Sir F. CROSSLEY said that Mr Forster had dwelt a good deal upon the want of good faith on the part of members of the House of Commons. The same thing had been touched upon by other speakers and writers on Reform, but in Eng land they did not adopt the Eastern mode—as Herod did, for example, when he ordered all children under two years of age to be destroyed, not only in Bethlehem, but all the coasts thereof, in order to make sure of putting down the Governor who was to be the ruler of the people of Israel. with reference to the state of mind of those classes and 01 those men who will practically have to deoide the question in the Houses of Parliament. I find now none hardly left of that old, stern, bigoted, determined opposition to Reform, as if Reform and Revolution were identical terms, which characterised certain classes in the time of the former Re- form Bill. On the contrary, I have found a general accept anc of the notion that some extension of the franchise mast sooner or later, and at no distant time, take place, and that its effect must be to admit the working classes of the country co some share, at least, of the franchise, But I think I have perceived an inclination, not unnatural, on the part of those who possess a monopoly, to put off that evil day, and I am sure that I have found in their minds a fear that they seem to have conjured up of being swamped—swamped under the dead level of some vast overpowering new class, which is to leave them no political existence at all. If these observations be correct, you will see that the difficulties we have to overcome are, first, a disinclination—l do not say a bigoted opposition—and second, a fear ; and what I de sire to say to this meeting is this, that I think we, who are members of the House of Commons, may be surely left to deal with the rear; but that with the disinclination it is you, you the outside public; and you alone, that can deal, and you must deal with it by the force of a persistent and overwhelming national will. (Cheers.) No man, no rea sonable man, desires a reform of such a nature that its consequence should he thie—that the whole policy, the le gislation. the administration of the country should take its tone from what may be called working-class influence alone. There is not the remotest chance of any measure being even introduced into the house, in which such a danger would lurk. I am quite sure my hon. friend the member for Leeds, who will speak after me, will have no difficulty in proving the innocence of his progeny of any such danger or design. And yet—and this is above all what I desire to impress—a measure should it be forthcoming so moderate as to contain no such danger, and as to be proveably free from any such danger or source of alarm, will be worth your utmost sup port—for believe me no political proposition can be proved more true than this—l address myself to the working classes assembled here before me —that if you in the per sons of a portion of your class once gain a footing within the pale of the franchise, you become a part of the consti tutional bo ly politic. Your political life may be said to have commenced, and the futuro will depend entirely on the use which you make of the vantage ground you have gained. (Applause.) And not only will such a measure be worth your support, it will, believe me, require that support if we are to overcome the disinclination of which I have spoken. In this respect your representative s are powerless. We who are on board the ship may discuss the best course by which argue i th e safetyou of the port which we de sirea to s teer—we omake—but my it sfrom y the outside public, that must come the breeze to fill our sails —and it is you only who can supply that necessary motive power, (Cheers.) Now) my resolution says " that the present state of Parlia mentary representation, excluding as it does a large ma jority of the people from any share in self-govern ment, is most unsatisfactory and unjust:' And in my opinion it is a condition of things Which cannot be allowed to remain long, because it would be a discredit to statesman ship, as it would be a disgrace to public spirit, could it longer remain. Let me consider for one moment the ques tion of the present state of the representation, in that re • spect of it in which I confess that I have myself the most interest—l mean with reference to the extent of the fran chise. The present franchise Stops almost exactly where a class begins; whereas, its policy ought to be, if not to ob literate, at least to tone down and to confine the already too strongly-marked distinction of classes, it seems as if it was determined to stereotype them in the constitution of the coun try, The civilising social influences of late years have all tended towards making less distinct and less offensively marked these lines of demarcation between classes of society. But the franchise seems to step in and to say they shall eon - tinue, as far as our political system is concerned, as broadly marked as ever, and we will compel the working classes in this country, with all their gr owing power and conscious ness of power, and with all their increasing intelligence, to think for themselves and to act for themselves exclusively and narrowly, as a class apart, instead of thinking and of acting for themselves as a great fraction of a country and of a harmonising whole. (Cheers.) Previous speakers have re ferred to the manner in which the distress has been borne by the population of Lancashire. I am almost tired of hear ing the praises of the population of Lancashire from men who don't seem inclined to carry out those praises to their logical results. (Hear.) I was reading the other day a speech of Sir John Kay Shuttleworth at the anniversary meeting of the East Lancashire Union of Moohanies' Insti tutes. It was a speech full of interest, of information, and of food for thought. It was a review of the progress of the working population of that large manufacturing district during the last fifty years. Now, I would defy any man to read that page of history, as I would call it, without feeling how immensely better is the present than was the past of that class, and without feeling how great is the future before them. Sir John Kay Shuttleworth showed to us the progress material, intellectual, moral, social, and I confess for one that I think any man reading that as a page of history might expect that the next should be the record of the willing admission of such men to take their share in the rights and duties of citizenship in the coun try which is common to us all. (Loud applause.) I have spoken of progress_ o f th e i mme nse progress of the working classes of this country. I am alive to that progress, and therefore it is not, so far as I am concerned, because of mis government that I would demand Reform. I do not say that there is not always plenty for the Reformer to do—but that is not the, true, that is not the logical ground upon which to put your demand for Reform—because of that pro gress—because of that progress which has rendered it in evitable, and which proves it to be safe—and all the more safe and all the more likely to fructify to the advantage of the country, if it be willingly accorded. There aro men in statesmanship who fear this progress —who call it demo cracy, and who would seek to stem its tide. But that de mocracy alone is dangerous which is a reaction against gross misgovernment, and which has its stormy birth in days of ignorance, of bigotry, and of oppressive rule. There is nothing of that which we should anticipate, but increased stability to the institutions of the country, and new power and added lustre to our national life, above all and more than ever before, a reuniting together of the bonds which bind class with class, till the lines of demarcation between them shall be lost in the harmony of the constitutional cdi fiee. (Cheers.) Aed when you ask for Reform, ask for it recognising all the merits and all the benefits of the pre sent and of the past. Ask for it as a right, for it is a right. But ask for it also as a duty. (Hear.) Make your claim to the right of fulfilling all the duties of citizenship in a great, free, and orderly community, and your claim will be heard, For the times are ripening for that event ; its advent is accepted in principle by the intelligence el the country, and it needs but one thing more to secure its realisation, They found a railway traveller who, in order secretly to rob his fellow passenger, murdered him and threw him out of the window. They did not eeize every traveller in order to make sure of the murderer. They tracked him, if neces sary, across the ocean. They gave him a fair trial—if guilty, he had to suffer for what he had done. The day of judgment for the House cf Commons was at hand. (Laugh ter.) The constituencies would soon have the whole matter in their own hands, and it would be for them to look to the pledges given in 1859, and to see how they had been carried out. He could only answer fur himself. He should be very sorry to have to answer for the Liberal side of the House of Commons--(laughter)—but for himself he could answer that not only since the general election of 1859, but since that of 1852, to the best of his recollection, he had been pre- sent in every division on the Reform question, and also on the ballot. (Cheers.) He had voted in every case in favour of the measures which had been proposed, with one excep tion, and that was Lord Derby's so-called Reform Bill of 1859. He went purposely from Yorkshire to hear Mr Dis raeli introduce that measure, and he stood up in his place in the house, and told the right hon. gentleman that in Yorkshire they would call it a great deal of cloth and very little dinner. (Laughter.) It extended the franchise to the glasses that now possessed it, and left the working classes just where it found them. But as they were without reform, it was far bet ter than having a bill palmed off upon than to settle a question which it never could settle, (Ap plause.) It might seem an easy thing to be a member of the House of Commons for 18 years, and to be in every division on the Reform question and the Ballot, and so it would if they divided first and discussed afterwards. (Laughter.) But they had to hear the late arguments and to wait till the small hours of the morning, and to find de bates continually adjourned. He had a very strong con viction in favour of Reform when he entered the House of Commons in 1862, and since that time that conviction had been strengthened. Since then he had seen the working classes in prosperity, and they used that prosperity by or. ganising industrial associations, establishing savings banks and building societies ; and many of them had merged into the middle classes of society. They had seen the working classes in adversity, which they bore so nobly that the stanchest Conservative might not now be afraid to ex tend the suffrage to the most intelligent of the working classes. (Cheers.) He often thought it very singular that men situated as he and the chairman were, with their capi tal invested for the most part in mills and machinery, and employing large numbers of workpeople, should not be afraid to extend the suffrage, while those whose property was almost entirely in land should be their strongest oppo nents. Surely, if there was any disturbance in the coun try, their machinery and mills were of much more brittle description, and were much more likely to suffer than the land. (Cheer:,) The solid acres were not likely to take to themselves wings and fly away. He could only ac count for it on the ground that he and his hon. friend came more in contact with the masses, and knew better their wishes and feelings. When he entered Parliament he went with a very strong feeling against the landed gentry, for he had found their opposition to Parliamentary reform so strong that he thought they wished to keep the working men down; but in conversing with many of them he was bound in all honesty to admit he was much mistaken —and here again it was because he had come in contact with them. just as he had said they wanted to do with working men, that he had got to understand them. They believed that to extend the franchise to working men would not give us as good laws as we now have, and that they were better friends to working men than he was because, the laws being bad, it was worse for the working men than for them. Nothing was gained for a cause by denying to their oppo nents all credit to the ground which they took up. Since the Refot m Bill of 1832 the advance of the country had been most marked in the intelligence of the people; so that now those intelligent portions of working men were far better qualified to use the franchise than was the class above them at that date. But it was said, if we were going on so weil, where was the necessity for any change ? This reminded him very much of the boy who was ridiculed by his fellows because he had grown too large for his clothes, and when he asked his father for a new suit fit for his larger size, was replied to by the parent—" Thou cub, thou, what dolt thou come crying for a new suit of clothes for, when thou has thriven eo well in what you have.' (Laughter):lt was safe to extend the franchise—and because it was safe, it was wise and necessary. (Cheers.) Sir Francis, after urging the necessity of including in any measure of Reform vote by ballot, concluded by proposing— " That the present state of Parliamentary representation, excluding as it does a large mejority of the people from any share in self-government, is most unsatisfactory and unjust," Mr STANSFELD, who was received with applause, said— The resolution, to speak to which I have been invited to come here to-night, may be said to be the expression of a political truism, for it is a proposition to which suc cesaive Parliaments, successive Ministries, and both of the great parties of the State have given their assent. The two last Ministers— first a Conservative, and lastly a Liberal administration—have brought forward practical measures of Reform. The Conservative Ministry came into power by what ono might call an accident in political warfare. With them a measure of Reform was rather, I think, a Cabinet measure than one expressive of tho wishes and the views of their supporters. Their Reform Bill was accepted by their followers as a party necessity. It was rejected by the House of Commons. On what ground was that measure rejected F It was explicitly upon the ground that the Liberal party had already pronounced a more advanced scheme, and were prepared to bring that advanced scheme forward again. Well, we know that that Reform Bill was defeated by an adverse vote, and that the Conservative Ministry dissolved that House of Commons, and appealed to the country. You had this Parliament returned, and as soon as this Perna ment met you had a vote of want of confidence moved, and that vote of want of confidence was carried against the Con servative Administration. And thereupon the present Ministry came into power, chosen by the Parliament which had been elected upon tht.t question of Reform. In due time they also brought forward their measures of Reform, and I would say of it that it was at least a genuine, though rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 10, 1864. and that one thing is your labour and your will. The hon. member concluded by seconding the resolution. Mr BAINES, in the course of his remarks, said—The re solution which has been put into my hands to move says " That further delay in remedying this injustice, after it has been repeatedly admitted in speeches frail the Throne, and by the leaders of both parties, would be derogatory to the character of Parliament and destructive to political morality." That might have been put oven more strongly than it is put as to the facts which are there referred to. The Queen from the throne has five times recommended to Parliament to take this question into its consideration. Four Administrations, including every Prime Minister for the last 12 years, have also declared their adhesion to the prin ciple of Reform. Both Houses of Parliament, and both sides of those houses, have, on every occasion when the Queen addressed them, pledged themselves to take the question into their serious consideration. These are pledges given to the nation, and the nation at the last general elec tion received and confirmed those pledges. I have got hero the words used by Lord John Russell at a meeting of Libe • ral members, held at Willis's Rooms, before the last Parlia ment actually assembled, and before the Queen's speech was delivered, at which Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, and other members of the Liberal party met to determine what course they bhould adopt. Lord J. Russell spoke those words—" The Reform Bill ought to be as unlike as possible to that which had been lately rejected (meaning the plan of Lord Derby). It ought to enlarge the franchises of the ' people, and there should be no counterbalancing provisions to take away wit h one hand what was given with the other." Here the noble lord referred to the plan which he himself had sketched, of which the two main features were an ex tension of the county franchise to the occupiers of £lO and of the borough franchise to occupiers of £6. And what did Mr Bright say in the presence of these noble lords, and of the whole Liberal party at that meeting ? "He hoped to see a measure of Parliamentary Reform brought forward not less liberal than that which they had recently seen sketched by Lord J.Russell"(£lo and £G). (Cheers.) These wore the conditions upon which the present Government received the adhesion of the Liberal party, and upon which they afterwards came into office. I consider the measure sketched by Lord John Russell is a debt of honour due from the Government to the country. I for one have called upon them in the House of Commons—and I call upon them here, and will continue to call upon them—to redeem their pledges and prove themselves men of honour. (Hear, hear.) On this many said, " You must, at the next general election, obtain from all your members a pledge in favour of the elec tive franchise." But I am disposed to go a little faster than either. I think that the next session of Parliament, and be fore wo come to the dissolution, is the time for Government to redeem their pledges, and that the Parliament and the people should insist upon that redemption. (Cheers.) In my opinion, the first session of Parliament is in every respect the worst time atwhich the question of reform can be bi ought forward. The last session is the beat time. And not only so, but the last session is the only time in which Ministers and the existing House of Commons can redeem the pledges which they have given to the public. In the presence of these pledges, remembering what they promised and what they are again about to face, I think it would be better that you would urge them to en immediate decision of this ques tion. Now, when the political atmosphere is calm, when every other question is swept out of the way, now is the time when this question should be urged upon the House 'of Commons. Nor do 1 agree with those who think there would not be a very fair prospect of success it a measure of that kind were brought forward by Government. I obtained for my motion last year, and I was below Mr Locke King, no less than 216 votes with 24 pairs, making 240 in favour of the measure ; but you cannot judge from the support a private member receives of the support a Government mewty sure would receive. If Lord Palmerston were to come for- ward and say, " I have given my pledge, I am bound as a man of honour to redeem it," and were to say to the house moreover, " We must meet the country, whether we redeem our pledges or not; is it better to meet the country without having brought forward a measure and having exerted our utmost strength to support it and carry out our pledges, or to be subject to the reproach of having broken our pledges? '—there is very strong reason to believe that if Government were thus to feel and thus to act they could carry the measure in the House of Commons. There is one man, if we could call him forward—the man wha has been electrifying the house and the country session after session by his magnificent speeches, and whose glorious sentiments and large heart correspond with his mighty talents in finance and with his wonderful eloquence—if we could but hear the silver trumpet voice of Gladstone—Parliament and the country I believe would respond in a manner which would secure success to a measure so brought forward. (Applause.) Lord Russell, who for many years with honour brought the question before the House of Commons, having been re moved to the Upper House, is, perhaps, a little disposed to " rest and bo thankful"—(laughter)—but Mr Gladstone is in the prime of his strength ; he has felt the claims of the working classes ; he has acknowledged them both to them. selves and to Parliament ; he has acknowledged that Go vernment and Parliament have not done their duty towards the working classes. He is the man to take up this question and if you call upon him I am not sure ho won't answer you. (Cheers.) Surely it would be a grand ambition for Mr. Gladetono, the man who, by the commercial treaty with France, put the top stone on the temple of tree trade in this country, and thus loosened the last shackles from the arms and feet of industry, that ho should be the means also of leading the iudustrious classes within the sacred pale of the English constitution. (Cheers.) That would be a grand ob ject of ambition—that he should be Enabled to say that he found industry fettered and loft it unfettered, that he found the people unrepresented, and that ho was the means of conferring upon them the franchise. (Applause.) I know some say they are indirectly represented, and that that is the same thing—that if they are well governed and indirectly represented they aro protected equally. It does to me appear absolutely puerile to introduce that argument as an objection to conferring the franchise upon the working classes. My belief, my conscientious belief is, that the introduction of a considerable repre sentation of the industry of this country into the House of Commons would have the effect of improving the char acter of that Clouse, and not of deteriorating it—would add to the elements of safety and of intelligence, and not with. draw enything that would be considered a safeguard of our constitution. Mr R. KELL seconded the motion. Mr Alderman GODWIN moved—" That it is necessary Reformers throughout the country should co-operate with energy in order to induce the Government and Parliament to settle satisfactorily the Reform question. This meeting, therefore, rejoices in the establishment of the National Reform Union for that object, and promises to that organi sation its hearty support." Mr WHITEHEAD seconded and Mr A, ILLINGWORTH supported the motion, which, with the previous ones, was carried unanimously, A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the pm ceedings, Demonstration of the Confederate Congress The Index publishes the following resolutions, which were introduced in the Confederate Congress on November 18, by Mr Henry, senator from Ten- nessee : Resolved, by the Congress of the Confederate States of America :—That the people of the Confederate States are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these high rights governments were instituted among men, de riving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and, whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to substitute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effeot their safety and happiness ; that on these principles, embodied in the Declaration of American Independence, the United Colo nies, in 1776, d.ssolved the connection that bound them to the Government of Great Britain, and on them the Confederate States have severed the bonds of that poli tical union which connected them with the people and the Government of the United States of America, rather than submit to the repeated injuries inflicted upon them by that people, and to the usurpations of that Government, all of which had the direct object to deprive them of their rights, rob them of property secured to them by constitutional guarantees, and to establish an absolute tyranny over these States. Resolved--That the Confederate States appealed to arms in defence of those rights, and to establish these principles, only after they had in vain conjured the people and the Government of the United States, by all the ties of a com mon kindred, to discountenance and discontinue these in juries and usurpations, and after they had petitioned for redress in the most appropriate terms, and received in answer only a repetition of insults and injuries, which fore. shadowed usurpations still more dangerous to liberty. Resolved—Thatafter:nearly four years of cruel, desolat ing, and unnatural war, in which the people of the Con federate States have unquestionably established their capacity for self-government, and their ability to resist the attempts of the enemy to subjugate them, this Congress does not hesitate to aver its sincere desire for peace, and to that end proclaims to the world the readiness of the Go. vernment of the Confederate States to open negotiations to establish a permanent and honourable peace between the Confederate States and the United States, upon the basis of the separate independence of the former. Resolved—That the time has come when the Confederate Congress, in the name of the people of the Confederate States, deem it proper again to proclaim to the world their unalterable determination to bo free, and that they do not abate one jot of their high resolve to die freemen rather than live slaves ; and further, if the people of the United States, by re-electing Abraham Lincoln, mean to tender to them four years more of war, or reunion with them on any terms, deeply deprecating the dire necessity wantonly thrust upon them, and relying upon the Justice of their cause and the gallantry of their soldiers, they acceept the guage of battle and leave the result to the righteous arbi trament of Heaven. Resolved—That in view of the determination of the enemy to prosecute this horrid war still further, against which the Confederate States have at all times protested, and which the enemy had waged with extraordinary vigour, and which has been marked by acts of extraordinary atrocity, in violation of the usages of civilised warfate, the Congress of the Confederate States will from this hour dedicate themselves anew to the great cause of self' defence against the combined tyranny of the enemy. That it shall no longer be the momentary occupation of the Congress al the people of the Confederate States, but the business of their lives, to gather together the entire strength of the country in men and material of war, and put it forth as with the will of one man, and with an unconquerable de termination to defend their altars awl their firesides till the last votary of freedom falls around them. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES,—The unhealthiness of London during the past year has scarcely attracted so much attention as it deserves. Week after week and month after month the Bills of Mortality have been far above the ave rage, and if the demand for a complete decennial epitome should be satisfied at the end of the current decade, the quota of 1864 will materially raise the mean result. If we take the last week only, we find that 1,624 deaths were registered, being in excess of the estimated number by 86, and still more in excess of the normal rate in mild winter weather. This return, however, unsatisfactory as it is, is an improvement on the return for the week before, and far more favourable than that for the week ending on November 19, when 1,742 deaths were registered. This unusual mortality, whatever be its general cause, appears to be distributed with tolerable uni formity among the various types of disease. Zymotio disorders are al ways rife at this time of year, and among these scarlatina and typhus maintain their bad preeminence ; but no particular epidemic of fever or smallpox is just now raging in the_metro. p olls, and a decided increase of bronchitis among elderly and middle-aged persons is perhaps the only abnormal feature of the Registrar-General's Report. Such being the case, we naturally look to what may be called the permanent conditions of public health for the explanation of a phenomenon which does not seem to depend on any special visitation. The first thing that will occur to every ene in connexion with the unhealthiness of the last 12 months is its extreme dryness. Such a drought as that of the season through which we have just passed is almost beyond the experience of any living person, and in many parts of the country the failure of the water supply has occasioned the greatest distress. It is true that the reservoirs of the metropolitan water companies held out beyond expectation, but a thundershower flushes the sewers more liberally than any company will ever be induced to do, and many sources of impurity are inaccessible to anything but rain. It is impossible not to suspect that deficient moisture has had some thing to do with the prevalence of disease, espe• chilly when we contrast the year 1864 with the year 1860. That summer was as wet as this has been dry, and it was the healthiest on record. The truth is, or appears to be, that our London atmosphere as well as our streets cannot be washed too thoroughly or constantly. There is little fear of damp, what with drainage below ground and combustion above, and no fog can resist the penetrating influence of a pouring day. It must also be remembered that a continued want of rain too often implies an undue proportion of east wind—a wi nd which poets may idealise as " the wind of God, " , but which suffering mankind, with one voice, refers to a totally diffe rent quarter, and the action of which, in its rela tion to the earth's rotation, philosophers have aptly compared to that of stroking a cat's back the wrong way. It is difficult to say whether the properties of this veritable sirocco of London are more noxious in July or in November —when it scorches and closes the pores at the same time, or when it irri tates the bronchial tubes of the West-end with black and nauseous particles from the chimneys of White. chapel. Certain it is that few tempers are p roo f against the effects of this odious blast after it has swept the arid table-lands of Asia and Europe an d absorbed the impurities of its own capital ; and that which damages the tempe . r . seldom improves the health. We aro not in a position to prove it by me teorological statistics, but we have very littl e d ou bt that east wind has been in excess for a lon g ti me past, and has contributed materi▪ ally to depress our vital powers. Still, there are many obvi ous para . dozes in these fluctuations of health which have hitherto defied scientific research. What we know of the laws that govern the health of a larg e popu lation is as nothing compared wi▪ th that we do no t know: Not long ago the vitalising qualities of the atmosphere were supposed to depend a good d ea l on the presence of "ozone, and it was said to have been ascertained that on mountain heights and spots exposed to sea breezes, like the chain pier at Brighton, the quantity of this life-giving agent was very great If we mistake not, how ever, Mr. Glaisher found in some of his balloon ascents that the ozone tests exhibited a diminu tion, instead of an increase, as he rose above the vapours of the earth, and there is no telling that the new element " antozano" may not prove a for midable rival for popularity. Even generalisations of longer standing and higher authority have to be corrected, and sometimes almost reversed from time to time. Such is the comparison between the sani tary effects of town and country life. From the su perior longevity of those who live in country districts it has been inferred, much too hastily, that bad air, bad drainage, and bad water are the prime causes of premature death. There is, of course, much truth in this conclusion, partial as it id, but a minuter analysis of the fact discloses several errors. The drainage of large towns is, in general, far more per. feet than that of country villages, and the stagna tion of putrefying matter is far commoner in the latter. This consideration, therefore, taken by itself, rather tells the wrong way, and it is more than doubtful whether the rural poor draw a more whole some liquid from ponds and so-called springs than is supplied to the town poor from public water works. The question of air remains, and hero it must doubtless be admitted that cottages in the country ought to have an advantage over houses in the streets of a crowded city. They ought to have it, but do their inmates always avail themselves of it by opening their windows at proper times to admit the fresh air of heaven ; do they avoid overcrowding indoors, and wage war against domestic nuisances Everybody knows that they do not, and that th e labourer who imbibes health unconsciously while he is worki ng . in the field s o ft en d oes hi s best - to tor • felt it for him self and his fa m ily by t o l er ati ng a f e tid atmosphere in his home. Ai r i s , no d ou b t , an i m p or . tant condition of health, but it is not enough that it should surround a domicile ; it must be breathed by those within it, and there is good reason to be lieve that sedentary pursuits in houses with closed doors and windows are nearly as prejudicial to vigor in the country as they are i n towns . Th e san it ar y differences, then, between London and Westmoreland or the Isle of Wight may be due to other circum stances than climate and density of population, and among these circumstances di e t, c lothing, and occu pation claim a prominent place. Happily. the two former, though neglected, are peculiarly within our own control, while th e i n fl uence o f unw h o l esome occupations may be counteracted to a great extent by the cultivation of wholesome habits. If all people knew how to manage themselves and their . dependents as well as some d o, t h e d eat h ra t e wou ld infallibly be lowered, and its variations in different years proportionately reduced. Scientific agricul tnre, though it cannot command the resources of nature, keeps famine a t b ay , an d s i mp l e precaut i ons against contagion have greatly mitigated, if they cannot wholly repel, th e ravages o f p es til e nce. Is it too much to expect that as the secrets of health —that is, of sustaining as well as restoring it—are further revealed, the whole tribe of fevers may yield to the same preventive means which have already banished the black-death, the sweating sickness, and the plague, and have brought the formidable small-pox of the last century into com parative subjection ? POST.—The density of the intellectual atmo sphere of Horsham has just been pierced by a ray of light from Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald. Amid the mundane reveries of a cattle-show, Lord Derby's Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has carried an audience of admiring listeners over the whole field of politics, with especial reference to the two great maxims of modern days—non-intervention and reform. It is hard to quarrel with Mr. Fitzgerald. We have all freely recognised his tact and his talents. Indeed, it was chiefly by his ability and address that the dignity of the English Foreign officio was upheld during the late Administration. But really, allthough he takes care to tell us that the responsibilities of Opposition are as great as those of Ministerial life, we find a good deal of recklessness in many of his assertions, and a height of paradox to which official responsibility does not very often ascend. He does not attempt, indeed, the flights of Lord Stanley. It required a good deal of moral courage, and a good deal more of utilitarianism than Mr Seymour Fitzgerald pro fesses, to describe Rome as a quagmire of ruins. Mr Fitzgerald is not exactly the man who would dissuade the King of Italy from going to the Eter nal City, on the ground that the atmosphere was unhealthy, and the public buildings were out of repair, as Lord Stanley did the other day in his speech to the electors of King's Lynn. Indeed, he expressly told the good people of Horsham that he by no means agreed with Lord Stanley's centralis. ing and revolutionary proposal to divide the minor States of Germany between Austria and Prussia, and so to make two great military monarchies of the whole Confederation. Mr Fitzgerald, however, need hardly have taken the trouble to disown his support of an eccentric international programme which can merely have the effect of incapacitating Lord Stanley from ever holding the office of Mini ster of Foreign Affairs. But the member for Hors ham has his paradoxes also, though they ara o f a far lets positive or practical kind, it is a little sur- h prising to hear the doctrine of nonsinterve e foreign affairs s et u p as that of Lord Castl cree l p and his school. Mr Fitz g erald, indeed, hiism Alot 0 0 th '• a nd c lear in his arg um e nt as is usual w i th there A i eti a . costs a point d appui a eainst the . there a little too muc h di s position to disco dmin v s tr er: ' at ta ll 4• - ,posed to t H h e e p te r l i l n s e u ir s le in o o f n fe e r p ei l g ac n et a a r ,d this prin ciple he supposes the pre sent Goverr ` went to have c arried out in the recent insta nce oft t intervention he i s q uite . r ne Danish war. He looks upon this a s a violation •jf bat he ealls, ; by an extraordinary mental distr ertion, Lord Castle' reagh's principle of noneiricervention--an error. which is, perhaps, 'the happiest antithesis to Lord t Macaulay's delusion, that everything thatc ,i° L good came from Willie= of Orange. Mr S e p. et iour Fitzgerald, by the force of leis position, 4 inev:teb. l Y a party men ; but we ourse lves, who are in :4 w ay tied to party obligations, may ecee re mind him te, ' at, if there were one p oint of Cliffatle4 more marker than another between Lord Cse Tdberals, it was that the latter je" reagh and th k e si3ted that the le..cessant i nterven ti o n of the Teri, Ministers in the afie, 'rs of Europe should be brough ! to a close ; and it wad, really quite as much on thin: point as upon the quest._ on of Reform that the fiTt, i . triumph of the Liberal le irty was obtained. la; principle of non-intervene. ga, whether pol e ° , otherwise, represents the grcre. th of Liberal opinicr_ insomuch that those who wo1114• carry it out to it s farthest extreme are the ditesiciles of Mr. Cobdes. and Mr. Bright. Lord Palmerete‘n and Lord Itee_ sell have endeavoured to preserve I.‘ mean betiv!_:' these two extremes of opinion ; and it seems ratu_e:. surprising to bo told that Lord Castles'eagh and .M il. Cobden are both on the same side of .the questitobe If it were otherwise we should wench r 0f 1313/ i bs war of the French revolution and the Crusew e 4O Hundred days arose. But it is not very ease' t°, ite. where Mr. Fitzgerald's own juste nzilieu ' so He ear th.` debate on the Danish questiog, 7 ho altered for the future the foreign policy oft .', country ; and yet in the same breath he declair; against against Mr. Cobden's views on the 1) 011° A of noneintervention. If the latter are fully uP e , . we do not see how Mr. Fitzgerald and his friene Pi. can be said to have changed our foreign Poli°oi for that is equivalent to saying that the doctrine 0 non-intervention is repudiated, and yet that it .. ' e enforced. It is strange that a politician so just 0 l'i acute in practical life as Mr. Seymour Fei e ! . l ' oh should not perceive the false conctusions into WI a id he is led by his partisan Oteoriee. Mr. Fitz , r l s is sees but little amendment in the constitutional Pilo Lion, so to speak, of Europe, that is to BeY 'n I vo growth of liberal ideas and s elf-governmeet. :',O observe that he adopts as a certain fact ';', restoration of the Holy Alliani le of which W e g° 00 evidence early in the summer„ and which ' that ica ° . o 0 much disputed at the time. N o doub t na confederacy against .he libertii 3 s of mankind, lid so long as it lasts and the sphere of its autholl,, extends, it is a very powerful one. Fortuna has however, there are already signs that wha t e is been done in the north and centre of Burn,P,"„ii , provoking a liberal reaction elsewhere • i.": 00. at any rate has breathed the freer in e°." o . quence of it. The Convention of the 15th ser' e s se ber has been one of its leading results. Nor O tur e take a desponding view of the constitutional fu„ire, of Austria, although the progress of the e ra [ ol e. towards representative Government must be,, l3 ., an y In passing to the question of our naval and 1 11 " 1 40 establishments, Mr Fitzgerald endeaviaurs. 'OO some success, to develop the true distinction 101 - to efficiency and economy.. He calls upon. no, E no consider whether we cou,'d not do as much NO' all money. " Let us," ho say 8 , "by all means bl 0; army of soldiers, but by no L 'ieans an army of elf 00 t We are afraid the army of soldiers evon l ' e tis o prosper without civilians to cs erry out the ree o io of its daily wants; but if Mr. l'itzgerald can pill out how savings in this respect can b e made balite be doing great service. He says, howe c e e e ', OA much truth, that the department in. whieu,"l:oild' least a ff ord to save our money is ths‘ t of 81311)- f O f ing, for we must always have the bes' t shie° lei that the resources of the country can v rodeee• 0 deed, the peculiar burden of the expo. etl it , u r e 00 have had for the last few years to enco nnAl'%oesi consisted in the progress of artillery an te -clO architecture, where no one has any certain) euite the most approved ships of 1864 may not be I d at out of date in 1870. Mr. Fitzgerald then gla.. ° w - ser the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and %lye! fusses the great difficulty of dealing with the a i - n jeco to lie in the fact that no satisfactory, of 44 practicable, plan of representation for the Iv ° '„," eig classes cr has yet been hit upon. There is an iner e : o ol. r isposition, whenever the fabric ef the repre s : o ol° L ion is next pulled about, to build up a re pro - e ye :on for the working man on a compreben 00 the basis and while it would be impossible to do e 0 04 of a numerical equality of votes with a rd classes at present holding the franchise , it is 0 to s ee %hat kind of fractional • sc°l representation a do be received ' with satisfaction. We confess // n - ion not altogether share Mr. Fitzgerald's appre lle e -6 e o for "serious times" on the Continent, and vv ° ,7 4:1 t 0 therefore, that we shall have the more lei sti-e bestow on internal sffeirs. i tlOO ' l 1 COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERFOOL--FitiDay. f r We have had but a moderate attendance of the - - .. ti p tig e our corn exchange this mowing, with a slow coot; dot r demand for wheat, and no alteration in prices. ."r v iee"' s there was a firm trade, but at no advance en b 0 ttP7 Oats and oatmeal dull. Barley and peas were tr„ o ite7, cheaper. Beans steady. Indian corn rather more Iv' , DP for, at fully last Friday's prices. Market closes Ortal inactive. WAKEFIELD—FRIDAY. c hang e The wheat trade is still slow, and there is no ley 0 6 e : previous values. Millers buy sparingly. Fi ne bor otli steady ; other sorts difficult to sell. Beaus vier" cheaper. Averages for the week : gd Wheat 3041 qrs., at 4oa n o Oats lB „o s v 2 98 lic , 8ar1ey......... 1704 36s O Peas .... 5 37s 71- d Beans --- STAMFORD—FRTDA.Y. Su . to e. AP White wheat, ;408:to 428 ; red, 35s to 388 Pe r Ag pot a ." 1: Barley, malting, 31s to 358 ; grinding, 278 to 3" 0,0 V Q9t to Oats, 18s to 24stper 24 stone. Beans, old, v‘-' ll - ' qr. ; new, 36s to 388. -FRIDAY. o a f wheat at our roOrilt,r; shade lower that , . "" LINCOLN There was a pretty fair shoe day, with a dull inquiry, an_ 40 2 0 quotations. 2 64 White wheat new, 40s to 44s Barley, grinding'' 3f3 t° 24a Red do. 36s to 386 Oats,:old, '''''' t ° Old white 42s to 47s New do ..........40s t° Red do.. 39s to 430 I 8ean5..........' ;so tv Barley, malting 33s to 34s Beans, new..' --- If BURTON. ON-TRENT—TlinnsDAlr*viti de 0 10 11 A seasonable supply of wheat, and sales we re 430 at rather lower rates than this day week. .400 t° 4 0 II Old white wheat .. 43s to 47s Old red whea t, .• . 3 60 to 00 New do. .. 40s to 46s New do. • . 0 ~,, 40 Malting barley....32s to 34s Oats. ........... 370 Grinding d0.....268 to 29s Beans ......... BRISTOL SUGAR—FRIDAY- The market oontinues in a depressed state, so u r 10,. ) 100 quite nominal for all descriptions of raw stig l4 % bttO w sugar is difficult to sell at 6d decline, a nd a lim it° doing. Rum in good demand at full prices. M the doge IK ET. of the gnarl° . ' Walla' 01/ 0 2 3 a 3 Hatton .. ..... • , 0 0 Haugh Hall ...... K e110e... • •• • • ' South Keno. • • • v Braddyll's I l e a°l l . •** 0 • 3 '. F ra mwellgate • Pensher Primrolle•'.2 l ' 6 Russel's Hotton• • 1 6 Cassop ........ • • Walls End. Caradoc ...... • South Hatton ...23 0 Hartlepool ..... Byron... 2l 6 Ships at market, 0 ; sold, 55, COAL M. Prices of Coal per Ton al s. d. Cowpen Hartley 18 6 West Hartley 18 6 Wylam 18 6 Lambert's West Hart- ley 18 3 Byass's Bebside West Hartley . 18 6 Davison's West Hart- ley . ,18 6 Births. 6 10 ell, Fox.—On the Bth inst. at at Haddon Hollee l .,,,hte r ' d of Derbyshire, Mrs. Edwa r d . Ward Fox, of a a a Mrd/Ob' HARDING.—On the Bth inst. , Mrs. Sidney I" '"" t' o o St. Alban's, of a son. f V 9Sle TREFUSIS.—On the Bth inst., at 8, Park-etre e '' ° ° I f:. square, the Hon. Mrs. Trefusis, of a son. .iit's ULLETT —On the Bth inst. , at Blythe H ouse, the B. Ullett, Esq., of a da ughter, Marriages. t V" Pi BARTLETT --HOARE.—On the Bth into, a Bartell °- Sussex. the Rev. Thomas Bartlett, rector of o gllt e timer, Northamptonshire, to Lu "u'da Grsce , d u lo t the Rev. Henry Hoare, vicar' orFraroileld• BATTERSBY—MIDDLETON —On the Bth inst.-L,P-t. lit Stephen's Church, George Battersby g" la iclTiva,-to of Loughbawn, co. a o. Westmeath, to "" el youngest daughter of the lateL ieut.-Colon 42d Royal Highlanders. JO IC' Deaths. os rib' i ARCHBOULD.—On the 7th inst., at Thrapatov, tonshire, John Arohbould, Esq., aged 64. o lvia l ' i BARRow —othe • n Bth met, Janet, wife of Mr° th ere Barrow ' , of the Morning Herald, aged 67. . his t LuAltro, —On the 9th inst., at the residenc? qiii.,4075 000 3, 610t1C?ster-gardens, Hyde-par, Captalni,' Luard, of the Royal Artillery. PA' MARRINErt.—On the 7th inst., John Gator garriller' of Surbiton-hill-park, Surry, aged Sl. idener'l Ws NEPEAN.—On the Sth inst., at' Dover, 1110jor-- Nepf:an, aged 69. 01 :11: London : Primed and Frt.:tailed Dy oi of No. 112, Stra d, Prnintof the Siv oy- a ll' er, at TOE SUN ° :cOll Ol St r and, In the Precinct kuddleoex.-- Saturday, .Deoeutber 10, 1E64.